Weekly Opinion Editorial

A FREEZE IS NOT A CUT!
by Steve Fair

Representative David Dank, (R-OKC) is the author of House Joint Resolution 1001 which if approved would allow Oklahoma voters to vote in November to freeze property taxes for seniors as long as they own their homes.
*****
Dank’s measure passed in the State House, but was amended in a Senate committee to simply raise the income level on the current program for seniors that qualifies them for a property tax freeze.

*****
Dank says the measure was watered down in the Senate because the education lobby lied and told Senate committee members his resolution would cut school funding. “The head of the state school board association actually alleged on Tuesday that this would cut school funding,” Dank said. “That is simply a lie. This measure would not cut one penny from any school or county budget anywhere in the state. All it would do would be to give Oklahoma’s 600,000 seniors assurance that their property taxes would not increase while they struggle to remain solvent and in their homes.”

*****
“This is in no way, shape or form a tax cut,” Dank said of the measure. “It is bogus to claim that it is. The people who claim to speak for schools ought to have more regard for the truth.”
*****

Dank said the property tax freeze for seniors was promoted by pleas from many seniors who are hard-pressed to live on fixed incomes with steadily rising utility, fuel and prescription bills, while also facing annual property tax increases. In some cases, he said, seniors facing medical costs or the need to place a spouse in a nursing home may be forced to sell their homes because of larger yearly property tax bills.

*****
Dank believes passage of HJR 1001 would make Oklahoma attractive to retirees by being fair to seniors. “Every senior who is forced out of his or her home by more and more bills from the taxman represents a dead loss to Oklahoma,” he said. “Doesn’t it make more sense to help them remain independent and in their homes as productive seniors than to drive them into nursing homes or assisted living centers because they can no longer afford the tax bill?”

*****
Critics of Dank’s bill include those who say that seniors can better afford increases in property tax than their younger counterparts. They also contend Oklahoma’s property tax is already among the lowest in the country and that Dank’s proposal simply freezes assessment of property.

*****
First, it might have been true in years past that seniors had more disposable income than the young, but that is not the case today. The golden years are not so golden for many seniors who are forced to sell their home because they can’t afford increases in property tax.

*****
American is a graying society and policymakers are increasingly targeting senior citizens to protect government’s revenue stream. At least five of the twenty tax hikes associated with ObamaCare directly target seniors, including a tax on pacemakers, wheelchairs and other items primarily purchased by seniors.

*****
Second, while it is true the devaluation of property has temporally impacted funding to schools; land is still a solid investment because it has a great track record of increasing in value over the long haul. According to smartcompany.com land and property are still viewed as a great investment by over 90% of Americans. Like Mark Twain said, “Buy land, they’re not making any more of it.”
*****

Government(schools) got spoiled when for years they could count on increased property values to increase their revenue each year. But shouldn’t schools and other government entities take a financial hit when the economic hits a snag? Individuals and business have to tighten their belt- it makes sense that government sucks it up as well.

*****
Third, there is no evidence that passage of Dank’s proposal would cut funding to schools. There is a big difference between a cut and a freeze. Having your paycheck frozen is not the most pleasant thing in the world, but having it cut means you get less money. Only in government accounting is a freeze considered a cut.

*****
If approved by the voters, the proposal would impact one in six Oklahomans who are seniors. Hopefully HJR 1001 will be restored to its orginal language and Oklahoma voters can decide in the arena of public opinion if they want to help seniors with their tax burden.

Weekly Opinion Editorial

PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES!

by Steve Fair

Last week, the State Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 1760, which amends Oklahoma’s current State of Emergency Riot Control Act. Authored by Senator Anthony Sykes, (R-Moore) and Representative T.W. Shannon, (R-Lawton), the NRA requested bill amends the current law by adding the following language; “Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow any official of a municipal or state entity to prohibit or suspend the sale, ownership, possession, transportation, carrying, registration, transfer and storage of firearms, ammunition and ammunition accessories during a declared state of emergency, that are otherwise legal under state law.” SB 1760 now moves to the House of Representatives for consideration

*****

Sykes said the bill would prevent what happened in New Orleans just a few years ago. “After Hurricane Katrina, the City of New Orleans actually began taking guns away from citizens. Instead of focusing on helping citizens who were completely vulnerable and in dire need of assistance, they were disarming people,” said Sykes, R-Moore. “The civil defense procedures and police department were clearly not functioning as they should have. Storm victims were becoming crime victims--they needed to be able to protect themselves.”

*****

Sykes, a lifetime NRA member, said, “I was very pleased to make sure this important issue was addressed in our statutes. “If Oklahoma ever faces an event as catastrophic as Katrina, it would be more important than ever for our citizens to be able to protect themselves.”

*****

The current State of Emergency Riot Control Act in Oklahoma gives the Governor the power to suspend sales of alcohol, impose a curfew, stop public assembling, and close streets and roads as well as stop any ‘such other activities as he reasonably believes should be prohibited to help preserve and maintain life, health, property or the public peace.’ during an emergency.

*****

Some would call Oklahoma’s Emergency Riot Control Act the ability to declare Martial law, but it doesn’t suspend ‘habeas corpus.’ which is the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment- a guaranteed U.S. Constitutional right. But the statue does grant authorities a broad range of latitude to maintain control in the public square during an emergency.

*****
Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—(usually) only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services). When Martial law is declared, habeas corpus is suspended.

******
Contrary to many media reports at the time, martial law was never declared in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because no such term exists in Louisiana state law. However, a State of Emergency was declared, which gave unique powers to the state government similar to those of martial law.

*****
And that didn’t stop New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin from declaring “martial law” on the evening of August 31, 2005. He in effect suspended habeas corpus and said that New Orleans police officers didn't have to observe civil rights in stopping the widespread looting in the city. Nagin reassigned the 1,500 New Orleans police officers from search and recue operations to riot control using the powers in the State of Emergency declaration. One of their jobs was to gather up weapons honest citizens had in their homes under the guises of ‘protecting the public.’ Cops were told to ‘shoot looters on sight,’ although it seems uncertain who gave the order. Eleven alleged looters were shot by police in the aftermath of Katrina.

*****
Sykes bill guarantees Oklahoma citizens the right to protect themselves in the event a state of emergency is declared- a fundamental right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by the second amendment. Contact your State Representative and encourage them to vote yes on SB #1760.

LET US VOTE!
by Steve Fair

This Thursday is the deadline for the Oklahoma House of Representatives to vote on HJR1075 authored by State Representative Jason Murphy, (R-Guthrie). The measure would send to a vote of the people a state constitutional amendment giving authority to the State Auditor & Inspector to conduct independent performance audits of nonfederal governmental entities or programs in Oklahoma.

*****
Murphy calls HJR1075 “one of the most important components of this year’s House government modernization effort.” In filing the resolution, Murphey called the proposed constitutional amendment an important measure “to ensure the performance audits remain free from political interference.”

*****
If approved in the House, the resolution moves on to the state Senate where, if it agrees, would place a state question on the ballot before voters this November.

*****
HJR1075 would make the performance audits at the discretion of the State Auditor. The scope of the proposed performance audits would include the identification of cost savings, reduction or elimination of services, and possible outside contracting of services to the private sector. In order to fund performance audits, the proposal earmarks 1/10 of 1% of current state sales and use taxes.
*****
What exactly is the difference between a normal audit and a performance audit? A regular audit only deals with the financial side of an organization. In a regular audit, so long as the debits and credits balance, everything is good.
*****
A performance audit examines a program, function, operation or the management systems and procedures of the audited entity to assess whether the entity is achieving economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the employment of available resources. Simply put, a performance audit determines if the government entity is spending the taxpayer’s money in an efficient manner.
*****
The Pew Center on the States writes, “Performance auditing and evaluation is an essential part of assessing government performance and holding agencies accountable for the tax dollars they receive.” The report goes on to say, “State auditing entities should have broad authority to audit any government entity, program, activity or function, and it’s critical to their effectiveness that they are able to conduct performance audits and evaluations free from the influence of other entities, such as the legislature or the executive branch.”

*****
Just how important are ‘performance audits?’ Last week, State Auditor Gary Jones released an investigative audit of the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE). The audit revealed that former State Schools Superintendent Sandy Garrett had a slush fund she used to put on elaborate receptions in conjunction with continuing education seminars. The money collected for the fund was solicited by state employees on state time from private companies with OSDE contracts.
*****
During a ten year period, this fund spent $2.3 million dollars according to Jones. Although Garrett stated she saw nothing wrong with the fund, she shut it down before she left office. While an investigative audit is not exactly like a performance audit, they both go behind the normal ‘numbers’ audit.
*****
Giving Jones the authority and the money to do performance audits is not without some opposition. Critics of HJR1075 correctly point out the proposal would expand the powers of the State Auditor’s office. While that is true, isn’t identifying and eliminating government waste what most taxpayers want from their elected officials, especially the State Auditor?
*****
Representative Murphey said, “It is vital for the State Auditor to have the tools to thoroughly expose the inefficient and antiquated processes that are conducive to wasting taxpayer funds and corruption.”
*****
Murphey added, “This proposal will allow the Auditor to make the decision to audit based on need, not on political influence, funding or bureaucratic resistance.”

*****
Taxpayers, regardless of party affiliation, want to know how their tax money is being spent. I predict that if HJR1075 makes it on the November ballot it will be approved three to one by Oklahoma voters. A recent survey by Sooner Poll shows voters across Oklahoma overwhelmingly want the State Auditor ‘following the money.’
*****
What could possibly be a valid reason for a state legislator to oppose HJR1075? That is a good question and one I would urge you to ask your legislator. Passage of HJR1075 simply lets the voters decide the issue of accountability in government expenditures. If it is such a bad idea, then it should be soundly defeated. Legislators should not be trying to protect ourselves from ourselves. They should let the process play out in the arena of public ideas. Oklahoma voters get it right an overwhelming majority of the time.
*****

Contact your state legislator today and tell them to pass HJR1075 and let us vote!

Weekly Opinon Editorial

ALL RACES ARE PARTISAN!
SB#327 an attempt to blur the lines between candidates

by Steve Fair

Last week, the Rules committee in the State House of Representatives approved Senate Bill #327 which would make the office of County Sheriff in Oklahoma a non-partisan office. The disappointing thing is five Republicans voted with the Democrats on the committee to move the bill to a floor vote. Previously, the bill had passed the Senate 29-17.
*****
The House author of the bill, Representative Randy Grau, (R-Edmond) says, “Legislators have an opportunity to show whether we want to be statesmen more than we want to be politicians. The public safety of a community is not a partisan matter. Lawmakers make decisions as to the law, county sheriffs execute it. This is absolutely no need for a partisan sheriff.”
*****
Is a Sheriff partisan? What is partisan? Webster’s defines a partisan as ‘someone who is a proponent of a Party, cause, faction, person or idea.’ Really, being a partisan is not necessarily a bad thing. Everyone is partisan! All of us advocate for our ideas, a cause or people. The key is to be partisan based on absolute truth and not on emotions, opinions, or circumstances. Where do we find the truth- in God’s Word. We should be partisan for those things He is for and against those things He is against. I want to know if my Sheriff is a conservative or a liberal. I want to know if he is a Republican or Democrat.
*****
This non-partisan issue has come up before. In 2007, then Representative Rob Johnson, (R-Kingfisher) ran a bill to make all county offices non-partisan. The bill failed. Johnson has since moved to the State Senate when his Dad termed out and is the Senate author of SB#327. Here are two reasons why I am opposed to SB #327:
*****
First, political party affiliation defines a candidate! It’s their first vote. If a candidate does not have to declare what Party they are registered in, it makes it difficult to determine what they stand for. Republicans are traditionally more conservative and Democrats more liberal. That is even truer today than it was twenty years ago. Removing those labels from a race will lead to confusion for the voter. Candidates should be proud of their Party affiliation and be willing to defend why they are registered with a certain Party. We should know whether a person has a liberal or conservative bent when they run. Their Party affiliation will likely tell us how they will view issues while in office.
*****
Second, Democrats are behind this bill and their motive is not about partisanship, it’s about staying in office. The major proponent of moving to non-partisan Sheriff’s races is the Sheriff of Oklahoma County, John Whetsel. Whetsel, a Democrat, realizes that being a Democrat on the ballot in 2012 will hurt his chance of re-election. Whetsel and Democrats are advocating this ‘statesman-like’ change as Republicans are quickly becoming the majority Party in Oklahoma. This is nothing less than opportunistic and the proposed change is not rooted in conviction, but in convenience.
*****
Some legislators have correctly pointed out that making county offices non-partisan is in the current State Republican Party platform. Sadly, that is true and that plank should be removed. Years ago, after losing county race after county race with Republican candidates that were infinitely more qualified then the Democrat, I said we should make all county office races non-partisan. Democrats opposed the idea and they were right and I was wrong! I repent in sackcloth and ashes. I failed to see the importance of knowing a person’s ideology and philosophy and their their Party affiliation helps do that.
*****
Because Republicans now outnumber Democrats in county offices across the state, Democrats all of a sudden want to remove the labels. Removing a candidate’s Party affiliation blurs elections for voters. It’s difficult enough to find out information about people who run for office. Knowing a candidate’s Party affiliation gives us at least an idea of their basic ideology.
*****
Every office- municipal, judicial, school board- should be partisan. By declaring one’s Party affiliation, voters can better identify the liberals and conservatives. Running in partisan elections forces candidates to take a stand- a key characteristic of the leadership they will need to be effective elected officials.